Kattara for comments

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim,

Thanks for clarifying the 751AD date. If I can continue to provide a little input, I'm still not convinced we can know the exact style that was transmitted - elements perhaps like the quillions but it still seems a bit of a stretch to say that this stayed completely unchanged? I have no idea, but logically I just see a gap here between the 751AD date and when we actually have examples from. I would imagine some stylistic changes might occur over such a long period? Might be interesting to start cataloging all the old style kattara we can find to see if any patterns emerge?




Thanks for the kind words, I'm not an expert in Solingen manufacturing history but I've learned a few things following trade blades for takouba and kaskara.

I have not seen any blade that looked imported on an old style kattara, but I guess some cross over could have occurred. Would be interesting to see one. If you've seen some in the Souk, even in bad condition it would be interesting to get photographs if you can on some trip in the future.



That is the big question of course and what I've always wondered about the two types. The difference in hilts. It seems the question of interior versus coast doesn't provide any answers - nor does influence from any nearby countries.

The blade transition I think makes more sense. If the European imports offered some kind of improvement in quality over locally made old kattara style blades then I am sure it would not take long for locals to copy the form and the markings. This is exactly what happened in N. Africa with kaskara and takouba. This would also explain the museum example you mentioned with the faked wolf stamp. This seems like something of a usual pattern where Solingen blades went, copied locally, stamps added to give a sense of authenticity. The form and the stamps become associated with quality. This is of course just an idea based on my observations from takouba blades and may or may not be applicable to kattara.

The hilts of course remain a problem, the only other thing I can think about, and I am probably completely wrong, is that as the sword dance developed over time the quillions and balance of the old sword were possibly modified into the new hilt style to be better suited to the dance? So that the new sword is then designed more for dance? Could this also partly mirror the increase in usage of firearms as the sword became less of a primary weapon as muskets took over? Just some thoughts but that's the only thing I can think of.



Yes I thought you might be interested in what was written on that page. I have no idea what sources they used. Where you able to read the stamp?




My pleasure. I look forward to your further research, you have a great advantage over many collectors in that you get to live in the area where your collection comes from! I would give anything to be able to do some field research in Nigeria!

Cheers,

Iain

Salaams Iain,

Great that you have taken such time to remark on the issue and your input is most appreciated.. As always in detective work I am concious of the danger is in arriving at a perfectly sound conclusion using logic and common sense without the painstaking research needed to back it up. The danger in "situating the appreciation" is always present instead of the other way around! The only way to nail this Old Kattara 1. With an original Style Blade and 2. With a blade of circa 17th C is to line up an example of each. (Im attempting to achieve that). I think that will happen quite soon ~ I needed to see Ariels example but having had a good look at it on the auction site I think it is an original form and, actually, could have an inscription at the throat..I will ask Ariel.

The blade with a clear, round Omani/Arabian stamp is fascinating. Im hopeless at precise deciphering and will ask Al Nakkas to look at that. The question there must be ~ Is it a manufacture stamp or a later ownership stamp? That weapon carries the usual information on this sword added verbattum by various houses. I think much of it is roughly correct but much is missing or clouded over. The Funoon and the Razha are not mentioned.

Your point about firearms eventually taking over from swords is probably right. Like in most Islamic weapons however I think tried and tested well accepted designs went on and on. In 1955 at the famous confrontation in Buraimi the tribesmen turned up with abu futtilla, daggers and swords as well as Martini Henry and Enfields.

~ I think we are looking at an ancient sword which at about the time of the Yaruba dynasty 1624-1744 which in perhaps the 17th or 18th C took on a thinner, flexible, less wing shaped blade from Europe (Germany) as a transitional blade which then morphed into the new Kattara in perhaps the 18th 19thC that entered folklore on top of an already well established tradition and as an extension of it. ~

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Dear Forum ~ the example posted by Iain is what I would describe as near perfect of the Omani Old Kattara and is best seen at http://www.trocadero.com/101antique...47179store.html

Unusually it carries an Omani stamp in Arabic possibly with the name of the owner though perhaps Al Nakkas can better decipher?

There is no dot/ dots on the blade. That could be for several reasons not least that not all blades had dots... Look at the point and notice how degraded it is. It degrades in the centre.. at what I call the "Dot Position" I have seen blades with a single dot at the point about an inch from the tip and dots at the throat. (See this thread for an example by Michael Blalock #61) . Regarding the degraded point I believe this is because the dot near the point is a natural weak spot and as the point wears it breaks or is worn and degraded at the very place of the dot evidenced by a "soft W shaped tip" ...

That is also the place on the Abbasid sword( at the TIP) where the dot is placed...

and is one of the 11 copies, influences or similarities taken on board the Old Omani Kattara "Style" in CIRCA 751 A.D.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Dear Forum,
I have copied in (with additions and subtractions) from Wikipedia a historical note important in the entire thread as underlying support detail and background material on Omani History;

In 751AD Ibadi Muslims, a moderate branch of the Kharijites, established an imamate in Oman. Despite interruptions, the Ibadi imamate survived until the mid-20th century.

But Oman was nonetheless conquered by several foreign powers, having been controlled by the Qarmatians between 931–932 and then again between 933–934.Between 967 and 1053, Oman was part of the domain of the Iranian Buyyids, and between 1053 and 1154, Oman was part of the Great Seljuk empire.

In 1154, the indigenous Nabhani dynasty took control of Oman, and the Nabhani kings ruled Oman until 1470, with an interruption of 37 years between 1406 and 1444.

Muscat was taken by the Portuguese on 1 April 1515, and was held until 26 January 1650, although the Ottomans controlled Muscat between 1550–1551 and 1581–1588. In about the year 1600, Nabhani rule was temporarily restored to Oman, although that lasted only to 1624, when fifth imamate, which is also known as the Yarubid Imamate ensued.. The latter recaptured Muscat from the Portuguese in 1650 after a colonial presence on the northeastern coast of Oman dating to 1508. The Yarubid dynasty expanded, acquiring former Portuguese colonies in East Africa and engaging in the slave trade. By 1719 dynastic succession led to the nomination of Saif ibn Sultan II. His candidacy prompted a rivalry among the ulama and a civil war between the two major tribes, the Hinawi and the Ghafiri, with the Ghafiri supporting Saif ibn Sultan II. He assumed power in 1748 after the leaders of both factions had been killed in battle, but the rivalry continued, with the factionalization working in favor of the Iranians, who occupied Muscat and Sohar in 1743.

The Iranians had occupied the coast before—indeed the coast was often the possession of various empires. These empires brought order to the religious and ethnic diversity of the population of this cosmopolitan region. Yet the intervention on behalf of an unpopular dynasty brought about a revolt. The leader of the revolt, Ahmad ibn Said al Said, was elected sultan of Muscat upon the expulsion of the Persians. The position of Sultan of Muscat would remain in the possession of the Al Said clan even when the imamate of Oman remained out of reach.

The Al Said clan became a royal dynasty when Ahmad ibn Said Al Said was elected imam following the expulsion of the Iranians from Muscat in 1744. Like its predecessors, Al Said dynastic rule has been characterized by a history of internecine family struggle, fratricide, and usurpation. Apart from threats within the ruling family, there was the omnipresent challenge from the independent tribes of the interior who rejected the authority of the sultan, recognizing the imam as the sole legitimate leader and pressing, by resort to arms, for the restoration of the imamate.

Schisms within the ruling family were apparent before Ahmad ibn Said's death in 1783 and were later manifest with the division of the family into two main lines, the Sultan ibn Ahmad Al Said (r. 1792–1806) line controlling the maritime state, with nominal control over the entire country; and the Qais branch, with authority over the Al Batinah and Ar Rustaq areas. During the period of Sultan Said ibn Sultan Al Said's rule (1806–1856), Oman cultivated its East African colonies, profiting from the slave trade. As a regional commercial power in the 19th century, Oman held territories on the island of Zanzibar off the coast of East Africa, the area along the coast of East Africa known as Zanj including Mombasa and Dar es Salaam, and until 1958 in Gwadar (in present-day Pakistan) on the coast of the Arabian Sea. But when the British declared slavery illegal in the mid-19th century, the sultanate's fortunes reversed. The economy collapsed, and many Omani families migrated to Zanzibar. The population of Muscat fell from 55,000 to 8,000 between the 1850s and 1870s. Most of the overseas possessions were seized by the United Kingdom and by 1850 Oman was an isolated and poor area of the world.

Late 19th and early 20th centuries

When Sultan Sa'id bin Sultan Al-Busaid died in 1856, his sons quarreled over the succession. As a result of this struggle, the empire—through the mediation of the British Government under the Canning Award—was divided in 1861 into two separate principalities: Zanzibar (with its East African dependencies), and Muscat and Oman.

The death of Sa'id bin Sultan in 1856 prompted a further division: the descendants of the late sultan ruled Muscat and Oman (Thuwaini ibn Said Al-Busaid, r. 1856–1866) and Zanzibar (Mayid ibn Said Al-Busaid, r. 1856–1870); the Qais branch intermittently allied itself with the ulama to restore imamate legitimacy. In 1868 Azzam ibn Qais Al-Busaid (r. 1868–1871) emerged as self-declared imam. Although a significant number of Hinawi tribes recognized him as imam, the public neither elected him nor acclaimed him as such.

Imam Azzan understood that to unify the country a strong, central authority had to be established with control over the interior tribes of Oman. His rule was jeopardized by the British, who interpreted his policy of bringing the interior tribes under the central government as a move against their established order. In resorting to military means to unify Muscat and Oman, Imam Azzam alienated members of the Ghafiri tribes, who revolted in the 1870–1871 period. The British gave Imam Azzam's rival, Turki ibn Said Al-Busaid, financial and political support. Turki ibn Said succeeded in defeating the forces of Imam Azzam, who was killed in battle outside Matrah in January 1871.

Muscat and Oman was the object of Franco-British rivalry throughout the 18th century. During the 19th century, Muscat and Oman and the United Kingdom concluded several treaties of friendship and commerce. In 1908 the British entered into an agreement of friendship. Their traditional association was confirmed in 1951 through a new treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation by which the United Kingdom recognized the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman as a fully independent state.

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the sultan in Muscat faced rebellion by members of the Ibadi sect residing in the interior of Oman, centered around the town of Nizwa, who wanted to be ruled exclusively by their religious leader, the Imam of Oman. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam autonomous rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the nominal sovereignty of the sultan elsewhere.

The conflict flared up again in 1954, when the new imam led a sporadic 5-year rebellion against the sultan's efforts to extend government control into the interior. The insurgents were defeated in 1959 with British help. "The Buraimi Confrontation" and "The Jebel Akhdar Campaign". The sultan then terminated the Treaty of Seeb and eliminated the office of the Imam. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. Zanzibar paid an annual subsidy to Muscat and Oman until its independence in early 1964.

In 1964, a separatist revolt began in Dhofar province. Aided by Communist and leftist governments such as the former South Yemen (People's Democratic Republic of Yemen), the rebels formed the Dhofar Liberation Front, which later merged with the Marxist-dominated Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman and the Arab Gulf (PFLOAG). The PFLOAG's declared intention was to overthrow all traditional Persian Gulf régimes. In mid-1974, the Bahrain branch of the PFLOAG was established as a separate organisation and the Omani branch changed its name to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman (PFLO), while continuing the Dhofar Rebellion.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.